I do not recall the threads associated with this incident. But I do know that intentionally posting under a false identity and also, intentionally misrepresenting one's true position - are wrongful on this forum.
If you are aware of someone doing such a thing, you would be doing him a favor by advising him of the history of Eschoir - who posted under many aliases and tried to create friction by fabricating inflammatory positions, such as the outrageous remark that Jesus would not have died if he had been packing heat.
Jim, this thread may be the most respectful and free exchange of ideas we've had thus far on the evolution v intelligent design debate. The subject matter of this dispute has to do with conduct on previous threads which have evidently been pulled some time ago.
This is all true. But the subject was broached by Vade in post 4625 and was deceptive as to the actual events. First, he noted in a post that jennyp had brought up the subject of one side of the evolution debate posing as a proponent for the other side and successfully pulling off the ruse. Both sides were considered. I commented that the "evos" would win hands down because they were practiced at the art of misrepresentation. The opinions flew back and forth for a period and then died down. Within this period Vade had asked for a "creo" to step into the shoes of an "evo" for the purposes of demonstrating "evolution" and not directly related to our discussion. No-kin appeared and volunteered. The "demonstration" hovered around mammary glands (IIRC) and why birds don't have them. No-kin asserted his lack of familiarity with the "vocabulary" of an evolutionist yet he was able to use terms normally in the lexicon of a Darwinian. During an interchange Junior stepped into the Vade/No-kin pas de deux by completely gutting a No-kin statement and changing its meaning. I used this as an opportunity to show the "evo"'s misrepresentation. I answered Junior pointing this out as an example of what I had asserted about the "evos". No-kin then answered me, but I had not entered his little charade, I was "conversing" with Junior on the subject Vade and I had "discussed". I answered him completely convinced that he was a fake, but waited until a later period, when PH brought up how "compliant" he was, to point this out. I merely answered..."things aren't always what they appear to be". They weren't. He was a fake. He broke the rules. His account was banned.
Now the reason I addressed the Admin Moderator and Jim Robinson was not for that fakery, but for the fact that Vade now practically admits that this person is someone he knows, who is still allowed to post. Medved is not allowed to post. I find that inconsistent.
Vade also writes that this was just harmless fun. If it is fun and harmless, then the "funster" should have the guts to admit the fun by revealing him/herself.
Was, wasn't it?